Sunday, 13 November 2011

BNP ignores its own constitution

Opinion is rather mixed on whether I have really been proscribed by the BNP or not. Is being banned from meetings a form of proscription? Arguably, all expelled members should not attend meetings, but there is nothing in the party constitution that says this. Instead, it says that "no rigid rules" shall determine whom the Organiser may or may not invite.

There is one school of thought that says I have not in fact been proscribed, merely banned from attending meetings.

Surely there is no need to ban me? All that has to happen for me not to attend meetings is for me not to be told they are taking place. In fact, even if I knew they were taking place I would already be aware that I am not supposed to attend and any organiser would know s/he was not supposed to be inviting me.

I believe the letter written to this effect was meant to appease the Northern members who are hopping mad that I was invited to the September London Social at which the Chairman was present.   I believe the reason why Northern members hate me more is because the Northern members are more disabled, illegitimate and degenerate and because there are more of them to take offence at the views I have expressed on the disability, illegitimacy - in short of the degeneracy that afflicts the white urban proletariat.

Because Nick Griffin MEP of the North West and  Andrew Brons MEP of York & Humber were voted in by BNP members of those regions, the views of these members are given more weight than the rights of hard-working London Organisers who may wish to invite me to their meetings because they enjoy my company or value my contribution to the nationalist cause or want me to take photographs or want me to give a talk.

The constitution therefore is being IGNORED and the right of London Organisers to invite whom they like without getting into trouble with the leadership has therefore been encroached upon.  I think the leadership should at least attempt to make these people understand the nature of a constitution and the idea of what is or is not in the rules - assuming that the leadership believes in acting in a fair and transparent way.

Clearly, the Northerners think there ought to be a rule against my being invited to BNP meetings even though I have been expelled, but there is not.

It seems they have all thrown a tantrum and the leadership has decided that it is more important to keep the Northerners sweet than to acknowledge the right of the London Organisers to invite whom they like to their meetings.

It would appear that the rules count for NOTHING in the BNP, even if the Chairman is a Cambridge law graduate.   Should there ever be a BNP government Nick Griffin would just rule like an autocrat, tear up the constitution and rule according to whim and fancy, mood and weather, ignoring everything that resembles principle or the rule of law.

Perhaps he thinks that the Northern members are not capable of understanding such rarefied concepts as the rule of law or the purposes of a party constitution or why we must play by the rules, because they are too disabled, illegitimate and degenerate.  Even so, there should be some sort of an attempt to do such a thing, and they may even understand, eventually, the reasons why we must abide by the rules of the constitution and the rule of law, and that it is for their own good.  Indeed, I feel that there is a distinct possibility that they are not so illegitimate, disabled and degenerate that they cannot be made to understand these concepts, with a bit of patience and persistence.

I would be delighted to visit Liverpool myself and explain things to them in person, if they promise not to maim and kill me.

The Northerners are being appeased at the expense of the rights of the London Organisers (who are not illegitimate, disabled and degenerate as far as I know and seem quite respectable people with proper jobs).   I was a little concerned to hear that Claudia Dalgleish, the consort of Steve Squire was sworn at by a Dawn Charlton, a Northern member, at the October Liverpool conference because Claudia supported my views on the family.  This is because white people in Africa are brought up to respect the institutions of marriage and family while the white people in West now no longer do so and now behave like black people, as David Starkey says.  Black people are also mostly illegitimate in the US and the UK, it should be noted.   (I have been told by a friend who works in one of the London prisons that the inmates there are about 80% black.)

The British National Party promotes familialism and supports the nuclear family of Western tradition, as well as favouring traditional roles for women and men. The 1992 BNP Manifesto thus asserts their belief that although women and men should be treated equal, women should "regard home-and family-making as the highest vocation for their sex" before their jobs or career. In September 2011, scholar Matthew Goodwin, an expert in electoral behaviour at the University of Nottingham has claimed in an article that: "particular members of the BNP" feel as though there has been a "substantial decline in family values" under the leadership of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. In the United Kingdom local elections, 2004, the BNP stood 80 female candidates promoting the BNP's "family values" policy.

The BNP 2010 Manifesto also declares their wish to promote traditional concepts of civility and courteousness in schools.

It would appear that the BNP are only paying lip service to these ideals, and kowtow to the Slut Single Mum just as much as the liberal establishment do.   Yes, dear reader, the BNP too have betrayed their own ideals for the sake of expediency and a few miserable votes from the worst of women and the worst of employees ie sluts and bastards that make up what in America is called White Trash and what in the UK are called CHAVs.

Can one trust a party or a leader that does not consult or follow its own rules?

Can one trust a party that says one thing and does the opposite of what it says?

Who does Nick Griffin think he is?  A politician of the LibLabCon in the mould of Ted Heath and David Cameron, terrified of controversy?  

How strange and ironic that I, a non-white female and foreigner, is taking more of an interest and feel more genuine concern about the racial health of white people than the very party that claims to promote the interests of white people.  Instead, the BNP are falling over backwards to appease the worst specimens of their race rather than follow the principles of racial health and hygiene, and at least see to it that the stupidest of their women do not breed with the poorest and most depraved of their men.   I am merely proposing that we should, to discourage them, criticise women who make bad reproductive choices, women who badly singly parent their usually illegitimate offspring (bad mothers), and women who have offspring that are both disabled and illegitimate (slut single mums) who become a charge on the state and then keep rattling their begging bowls at the taxpayer as Riven Vincent has been known to do on Mumsnet at David Cameron and her own MP Jack Lopresti.  Some of you may know that she went on to have a severely disabled baby who is now 7 when she knew 13 years ago that she had MS.   Now, not only is her daughter severely disabled, the mother herself is too, and we are to dig deeper and harder into our rapidly diminishing stores of compassion to bankroll the lifestyle choices of women like her who mess up their lives and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab, as usual.  

I had expected some support from the party, but really, I was shot in the back, because, unbeknownst to me, it seems that the BNP are now as thick as thieves with the disabled rights lobby to whom they have sold their racial soul.

It is quite clear that the cancer of slut single mummery, now in epidemic proportions, has now reached the brains, balls and guts of the British body politic.  The condition of the liberal political establishment is now terminal, and there is no possibility of remission.

The only thing left would be to wait for it to die, clean up the whole stinking putrid mess and start anew.

I am afraid to say that I do not think that a party as morally confused as the BNP can ever prosper if it carries on in this way, lurching along drunkenly in the blind alley of expediency without a hint of principled moral guidance, selling its soul to the devil and its body to the night.

If only I could help the tragic white people who have been marginalised by the liberal political establishment who are now being exploited and then abused by their white people's party.  However, having been expelled for daring to say on radio that I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby and thus destroying my marriage and for pointing out that in pre-NHS days the midwife would discreetly be practising eugenics, I can now only advise and warn from the sidelines, even as my prophecies are ignored, like Cassandra of Troy ...

No comments: